Meeting minutes
Kaz: would like to ask you all about your opinions/ideas
Sebastian: I'm interested in OPC UA
… UA binding for WoT, etc.
… how should the collaboration be?
… my proposal was having a joint activity
… but may require much effort
… e.g., W3C and OPCF working on the binding template spec
… working with manufacture organizations would make sense
… but OK with not having a joint charter for the work
… but wondering about how to handle it
Dave: we have some precedent with OGC about joint work
McCool: we need to do 2 things
… 1. what's our requirement for goals
… 2. pros and cons
… we're chartered to publish our own specs based on the W3C process
… we need to clarify the points
Sebastian: yeah
… we need to think about IP issues
McCool: would like to stay within the current Charter
… generating royalty-free specs base on the W3C process
… is OPC UA ok with that?
Lagally: interoperability problem here
… different organizations with different patent policy, etc.
… we need to set our goals
… what kind of specs we need
… what kind of work is required
… there is no clue yet
… in terms of interoperability, who has time and bandwidth?
… also question about expertise
… knowledge about OPC UA is required
… we first need an actual story for the collaboration
… e.g., mapping for transition
Sebastian: the point here is you can't make benefit yet
… we're resolution for interoperability
… we're offering solutions
Lagally: we're seeking counter-fragments
… figure out reaching out OPC UA guys
Sebastian: there is silos
Lagally: definitely
Sebastian: OPC UA has their own standards and tools
… but not flexible enough for their requirements
… WoT could be a nice bridge using the Web technology
… for OPC-based systems too
Lagally: right
… but I don't understand your point on the expected collaboration
McCool: we need to find other benefits
… easy to ingest, etc.
… emphasize a lot of things
… integrating OPC UA with other various ecosystems
Lagally: we counter the fragmentation of IoT
(some more discussions)
Lagally: web technology and WoT would bridge with OPC UA
McCool: detailed list of benefits to be generated
… specific about the benefits
Lagally: absolutely
… we have to have compelling descriptions
McCool: do we have any champions on the OPC UA side?
… who to convince?
… what's the status
Sebastian: technical director of OPC UA
Kaz: wondering why we can't go through the usual path for liaison, e.g., use case discussion and plugfest demonstration, for OPC UA
Sebastian: we've already started some use case discussion
Kaz: right
… and why don't we simply continue to discuss it?
Sebastian: (shows his generated PR for use cases)
Kaz: we should start with the actual use case and business needs description rather than starting with a proposal on joint spec work
McCool: right
Dave: right
Lagally: why don't we start with our usual small steps?
… to see the need for the collaboration
… your goal is thinking about Thing Description for OPC devices. right?
Sebastian: right
… you could have a common way to define endpoints
… regardless of the subsystems
Lagally: that's integration issues. right?
Dave: right
… many different systems could be involved
Sebastian: yeah
… and OPC UA is a big market to be involved
<sebastian> Karl Deiretsbacher - OPC Foundation Technical Director
Sebastian: so collaboration with them would be very useful for marketing and deploy purposes too
<mlagally__> ?
(some more discussions)
<mlagally__> yeah, we just should ensure we also have time to talk about ITU
<mlagally__> we should try to discuss here
Sebastian: (gives clarifications on the background history)
Lagally: would like to suggest we continue the use case discussion
Sebastian: we might be going to fail the possible OPC binding
McCool: can understand your concern but we should clarify our need first
… also the champion who handles that collaboration
… e.g., talk with somebody from OPC UA side to clarify what is needed
Sebastian: one possibility is working with the OPC UA guys for some specific use case
Lagally: that's good
McCool: can be done via the current simple liaison
McCool: writing down the motivation as well
Lagally: then
… would like to talk about the ITU-T liaison too
… some of their specs are pretty old
… could be added to the terminology
… many thanks for McCool
… what should be done for the joint discussion during the vF2F on March 22?
McCool: on their side updating their specs for better alignment
… should ask them
Lagally: collaboration for interoperability?
McCool: we should say what they want to do on the ITU-T side
… updating their spec to get aligned with our specs
… if their specs recommend W3C WoT, that's fine
… but aligning the terminology is important, for example
Lagally: yeah
… we should ask them about their plan
… for counter-fragment effort
McCool: yeah
… it's possible their WoT is an extension of W3C WoT
Lagally: let's see their ideas
… so regarding OPC UA, we'll refine the use case description
… based on the feedback from the OPC UA side
Sebastian: ok
… but not possible within the upcoming a few weeks
Lagally: that's ok
Sebastian: btw, still wondering about the possible joint Charter
McCool: that's possible if really needed
Sebastian: would involve people from OPC UA into our discussion
Lagally: we can invite them to our meetings
… e.g., the use cases call
[adjourned]